Why? What's "odd" about it? If you build — or purchase — a house, you and your ancestors can live in it forever. Why must a song be ever confiscated from its owner?
If a person makes a house and sells it, then it is no longer theirs to sell (or as you'd say, it's "confiscated"). There are also lots of other people around to sell houses. If you're selling your house for too much, I can buy it from the guy next door.
If we had better laws regarding copyright then we wouldn't need the GPL (though that's also a response to non-open-source software which is a different matter). Code licensing should also not be perpetual
So, we can use the term "stolen", when referring to intangible things, after all? Good to know...
That was a jab at people who say you can "steal" music - glad you got it!
You are right! Under the current system an artist is free to release their works "into the wild" whenever they please. They have a choice between trying to profit and trying to gain renown. You want to take that away (steal) from them, mandating some arbitrary (and short) time limit. I fail to see, how this can possibly be considered "fair".
I'm not advocating for the elimination of copyright - just shortening it to a reasonable period. If copyright lasted 3-7 years (government protected monopoly), artists would still make most of the money they do now (most songs aren't even going to be making money for that long) while society would benefit from having the works come into public domain. Really a win-win situation unless you're a media mega-corp.